The Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 1 additional appeal decision relating to householder permitted development legislation, for which the conclusions are as follows:

April 2021 - Code a01291 (appeal dismissed):

• E.1(c) not only prevents an outbuilding from being directly in front of the principal elevation, but also prevents an outbuilding from being in front of the imaginary line of the principal elevation when extended to either side.
• In particular, where “the principal elevation” is staggered horizontally, then to each side of the house the imaginary line is determined by the part of the principal elevation that’s nearest to that side.
  [Conclusion: The works do not comply with E.1(c) of the GPDO 2015 on the basis that the outbuilding is forward of the nearest part of the principal elevation (albeit that it would also be forward of the furthest part of the principal elevation)].
  [Quote: “The Permitted development rights for householders - Technical Guidance September 2019 (TG) explains that development in front of a hypothetical line drawn through the principal elevation to the side boundary of the land surrounding the house is not permitted. It illustrates two examples of principal elevations, one of which is stepped. The illustration shows that the hypothetical line runs straight from the front corner of the nearest part of the principal elevation to the side boundary, such that buildings forward of the line are not permitted. There is no indication that it should follow the line of the road or the front boundary of the site, nor that it should have regard to a notional ‘building line’ in relation to adjacent dwellings. Part of the outbuilding would be situated on land forward of the wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse, in conflict with limitation E.1(c). For this reason, the outbuilding is not permitted development and express planning permission is required.”].
• In particular, where “the principal elevation” is not parallel to the highway, then the imaginary line (to the side of the house) runs parallel to the principal elevation (i.e. rather than parallel to the highway).
  [Quote: “The Permitted development rights for householders - Technical Guidance September 2019 (TG) explains that development in front of a hypothetical line drawn through the principal elevation to the side boundary of the land surrounding the house is not permitted. It illustrates two examples of principal elevations, one of which is stepped. The illustration shows that the hypothetical line runs straight from the front corner of the nearest part of the principal elevation to the side boundary, such that buildings forward of the line are not permitted. There is no indication that it should follow the line of the road or the front boundary of the site, nor that it should have regard to a notional ‘building line’ in relation to adjacent dwellings. Part of the outbuilding would be situated on land forward of the wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse, in conflict with limitation E.1(c). For this reason, the outbuilding is not permitted development and express planning permission is required.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a particular structure does constitute a “verandah, balcony or raised platform”. [Note: In other words, such a structure is prevented by the limitations about balconies (i.e. A.1(k), B.1(e), and E.1(h))].
  [Conclusion: A patio on one side of an outbuilding, with area 13.8m x 5.0m = 69.0m2, and (partly) covered by the 1.1m overhang of the roof, is a “verandah”].

Notes:

• To view the conclusions, full summaries, and decision notices for any of the above appeals, please view the Part 1 of the GPDO - GENERAL Appeal Decisions document. As a member of the Planning Jungle website, you can view the decision notices for all of the appeals within the above document for no extra cost.
• Any of the above conclusions marked with a "(*)" contradict other appeal decisions. The "Reference Section" within the above document indicates how many appeals have supported and contradicted each particular conclusion.